CW/12556/2026 of SMT. MANPHOOLI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI BACHCHU SINGH Vs UDAINARAYAN MEENA SON OF SHRI GYARSILAL MEENA on 17 August 2026

1. Smt. Manphooli Devi Wife Of Shri Bachchu Singh, (Deceased)

2. Arun Singh Son Of Shri Bachchu Singh, Resident Of Village Andhi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus

1. Udainarayan Meena Son Of Shri Gyarsilal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Ravli Ki Dhani, Village Pleda, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur

2. Smt. Manphooli Devi Wife Of Shri Bachchu Singh, (Died During Suit Proceeding)

3. Dhara Singh, Son Of Bachchu Singh

4. Ajeet Singh, Son Of Shri Bachchu Singh

5. Abhay Singh, Son Of Shri Bachchu Singh

6. Smt. Sheela, Daughter Of Shri Bachchu Singh

7. Smt. Maya Daughter Of Shri Bachchu Singh, All Residents Of Village Aandhi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parashar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order(Oral) 17/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the learned Collector (Stamps), Jaipur Circle III, that Case No. 499/2025 be decided before the civil suit founded upon the same instrument is proceeded with further.

(2 of 5) [CW-12556/2026]

2. The petitioner no.2 is the son and legal heir of late Smt. Manphooli Devi, the original petitioner no. 1.

3. It is averred in the petition that respondent no. 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 43/2023 (05/2019), NCV No. 18/2019, before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The suit is for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction. It rests upon an alleged agreement, Ikrarnama, dated 22.09.2012, said to have been executed by late Smt. Manphooli Devi in respect of her alleged 1/6th share in agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 6, measuring 67 Bigha 13 Biswa, situated at Village Futolav, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. The stated rate is Rs. 6,00,000 per bigha. Respondent no. 1 claims that possession was delivered after substantial consideration was paid. 3.1 Late Smt. Manphooli Devi denied execution of the said agreement during her lifetime. Her case before the learned trial court was that the document is forged and fabricated. She pleaded that blank signed and thumb marked papers, obtained from her in connection with revenue litigation and Berry Commission proceedings, had been misused. She further pleaded that she never agreed to sell the land and never received any sale consideration. It is stated that she was an illiterate rural lady. A power of attorney dated 23.09.2012 was admittedly executed in favour of respondent no. 1 for conducting litigation concerning the said land. 3.2 The alleged agreement dated 22.09.2012 is written on a stamp paper of Rs. 100. It contains recitals of transfer of possession and of rights in valuable immovable property. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application under Sections 35, 37 and 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act was moved for impounding of the document and for its

(3 of 5) [CW-12556/2026] reference to the Collector (Stamps). Vide order dated 05.04.2024, the learned trial court held the document to be insufficiently stamped. It directed impounding and transmission of the document to the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur. Proceedings under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act were accordingly registered before the Court of Collector (Stamps), Jaipur Circle III, as Case No. 499/2025, titled Manphooli Devi Vs. Udainarayan Meena. 3.3 Before the Collector (Stamps), the petitioner has raised objections regarding the alleged fabrication of the agreement. He has also pointed out the pending revenue and Berry Commission litigation affecting the subject land, the absence of complete valuation reports and the applicable DLC rates. Respondent no. 1 has contested these objections and has maintained the validity of the agreement and his alleged possession. Those proceedings are pending. The civil suit is simultaneously proceeding upon the strength of the same disputed and insufficiently stamped document. 3.4 Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has itself held the agreement dated 22.09.2012 to be insufficiently stamped and has ordered its impounding. He contends that Sections 35, 37 and 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act create a statutory bar against the admission and use of an insufficiently stamped document in evidence until the requisite duty and penalty are adjudicated and paid. The suit rests wholly upon that very document. Therefore, no effective adjudication can proceed in the suit until the question of stamp duty and admissibility is finally determined by the Collector (Stamps). He adds that the proceedings before the Collector

(4 of 5) [CW-12556/2026] (Stamps) are substantive statutory proceedings and are not a mere formality.

5. He further submits that the execution of the agreement stands specifically disputed as forged and fabricated. The dispute is also intertwined with the Berry Commission litigation, pending revenue disputes and questions of khatedari rights. He contends that until the objections raised in Case No. 499/2025 are decided, the document cannot be acted upon by the civil court, directly or indirectly. Continuation of the suit in the meantime would cause grave prejudice and irreparable injury to the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. The memo of the writ petition shows that the dispute is inter se between private parties. The grievance of the petitioner is directed towards expeditious adjudication of Case No. 499/2025, pending before the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur Circle III, arising out of the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur District, Jaipur. However, neither the Collector nor any State functionary has been impleaded as a party to the writ petition.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition, in its present form, is not maintainable.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file it afresh after carrying out the necessary corrections and after impleading the appropriate parties, if so advised.

10. It shall also be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the learned Collector (Stamps), Jaipur Circle III, for redressal of his grievance. If such an application is moved, we have no

(5 of 5) [CW-12556/2026] doubt that the same shall be looked into and decided in accordance with law.

11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 5/AARZOO/TUSHAR